People went apeshit about it not getting a nomination last year and that really pushed the expansion to ten nominees, IMO.

I mean people went APESHIT (meaning the general public, as it was the pop culture hit of the year last year and the movie all the idiots were talking about being the defining movie of our generation, much like Avatar this year).

I actually thought the Dark Knight was a decent movie. Not worthy of an Oscar by any means, but very solid. 100x more interesting than most crap that people go insane about.

e0y2e3 wrote:Biggest reason it seems watered down is the ten nominees.

Really didn't consider that, but I think that you may have a point there.

Probably it's just from my perspective, in middle-america you don't exactly get stuck with some of the good movies that you probably have more of an advantage in seeing.

And part of it, maybe it's just me, from my personal. perspective it wasn't a very good year. I'm sure something like the "Up in the air" would be a great movie for someone like you, it was probably pretty well done, and I can see why it would be nominated, but to me it's not as appealing.

Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.

Triple-S wrote: Probably it's just from my perspective, in middle-america you don't exactly get stuck with some of the good movies that you probably have more of an advantage in seeing.

Not sure I follow, SSS. It's two thousand and fucking ten. What film will e0y2e3 see in Boston that you can't eventually view in West Lafayette, Indiana? Unless it's the director's cut of Good Will Hunting?

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team

Triple-S wrote: Probably it's just from my perspective, in middle-america you don't exactly get stuck with some of the good movies that you probably have more of an advantage in seeing.

Not sure I follow, SSS. It's two thousand and fucking ten. What film will e0y2e3 see in Boston that you can't eventually view in West Lafayette, Indiana? Unless it's the director's cut of Good Will Hunting?

Easy example on that.

I don't recall "Big Fan" ever making it around here. I know thats just one movie, but I'm sure it's not the first movie like that has not shown up in theaters in small town usa.

Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.

I don't recall "Big Fan" ever making it around here. I know thats just one movie, but I'm sure it's not the first movie like that has not shown up in theaters in small town usa.

Does the whole "I can rent or buy DVDs without getting my slack ass off my couch" thing escape you? Yes, dude. We understand that at it's "height" Big Fan never made it to theaters off either coast. It did get to DVD and your local video store/Netflix in January, however. 2010. Technology. New business models, etc.

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team

I don't recall "Big Fan" ever making it around here. I know thats just one movie, but I'm sure it's not the first movie like that has not shown up in theaters in small town usa.

Does the whole "I can rent or buy DVDs without getting my slack ass off my couch" thing escape you? Yes, dude. We understand that at it's "height" Big Fan never made it to theaters off either coast. It did get to DVD and your local video store/Netflix in January, however. 2010. Technology. New business models, etc.

e0y2e3 wrote:People went apeshit about it not getting a nomination last year and that really pushed the expansion to ten nominees, IMO.

I mean people went APESHIT (meaning the general public, as it was the pop culture hit of the year last year and the movie all the idiots were talking about being the defining movie of our generation, much like Avatar this year).

I actually thought the Dark Knight was a decent movie. Not worthy of an Oscar by any means, but very solid. 100x more interesting than most crap that people go insane about.

nahh.

It was one-sided propaganda Dick Cheney would be proud of; a movie about public paranoia and the desire for some sort of deus ex mechina to be the messiah of justice that eludes the temporal world.

Plus Christain bale is aweful. Just wooden. Plus, in the end, it is about blowing crud up and a guy in a fakking rubber suit. Meaning of life in that? Really?

Up In The Air was the best picture of the year, but Clooney doesn't apparently rate as royalty yet. Little blue men and dncing CGI shit with a plot that is a mixture of DWW and Pocahontas was seriously consideered?Really Hollywood?

Hurt Locker was really good. But Up in the Air was better. YMMV.

Last edited by jb on Tue Mar 16, 2010 1:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.

It was one-sided propaganda Dick Cheney would be proud of; a movie about public paranoia.

Plus Christain bale is aweful. Just wooden.

Up In The Air was the best picture of the year, but Clooney doesn't apparently rate as royalty yet. Little blue men and dncing CGI shit with a plot that is a mixture of DWW and Pocahontas was seriously consideered?Really Hollywood?

Hurt Locker was really good. But Up in the Air was better. YMMV.

Rewatched The Hurt Locker with Clarissa this weekend, and I'm not really sure what bug was up my ass when I gave it a 3 1/2.

By far the second best film of the year, just slightly below Up in the Air.

For Avatar...I'll still say that it was worthy of a nomination...nothing more. Same as Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Wars, and Jurassic Park should probably receive nominations based on how cutting edge they were and how entertaining they were...but they weren't Best Pictures of their year, or any year.

Don't get me wrong, I love being entertained, and Avatar blew me away in that regard. But Best Picture needs to be about much more than the Wow Factor. I want a great story, great characters, great chemistry, great cinematagraphy, and a great job of direction.

Up in the Air and Hurt Locker were the only two films that gave us that.

It was one-sided propaganda Dick Cheney would be proud of; a movie about public paranoia.

Plus Christain bale is aweful. Just wooden.

Up In The Air was the best picture of the year, but Clooney doesn't apparently rate as royalty yet. Little blue men and dncing CGI shit with a plot that is a mixture of DWW and Pocahontas was seriously consideered?Really Hollywood?

Hurt Locker was really good. But Up in the Air was better. YMMV.

Rewatched The Hurt Locker with Clarissa this weekend, and I'm not really sure what bug was up my ass when I gave it a 3 1/2.

By far the second best film of the year, just slightly below Up in the Air.

For Avatar...I'll still say that it was worthy of a nomination...nothing more. Same as Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Wars, and Jurassic Park should probably receive nominations based on how cutting edge they were and how entertaining they were...but they weren't Best Pictures of their year, or any year.

Don't get me wrong, I love being entertained, and Avatar blew me away in that regard. But Best Picture needs to be about much more than the Wow Factor. I want a great story, great characters, great chemistry, great cinematagraphy, and a great job of direction.

Up in the Air and Hurt Locker were the only two films that gave us that.

Right with you, lock step.

Hurt Locker actually grew on me the longer I watched it. It is subjective, but I thought Up In the Air was alot more introspective and accessible for most as how many of us will blow up IED's vs being caught in the human condiation and looking back at life choices?

In the end, Hurt Locker won for politics. t was a great industry story for the ex-couple to compete and it broke the gender glass ceiling. Isn't that waht the awards are now? A way to jump-stat the sumer movie seson?

Close third for Quentin and crew. When you list all of the "Great" items I had above, I don't think "great chemistry" was in this film, so that's why it only gets a "show", a couple of noses behind the other two.

Actually, Basterds is another movie that jumped a half-football after I watched it a second time, as it got a 3 1/2 in the original review.

Happens a lot. I fully expect Avatar to drop a notch on second viewing, same with Invictus. That's the problem with movie critics. Sometime's we're just in a shitty mood going in, and unless the film blows us away, it's going to pay hell for it (which might be relevant to my review yesterday of Alice in Wonderland...we shall see). Other times, a not-so good movie finds a little hook that suckers me in, and I rate it higher than I should. (WALL-E...for JB's sake. Watchmen is probably another). Plus if I've been gagging on shitty movies for a couple of months, I tend to overrate the first good film I see (which is why Invictus got 4 footballs).

Close third for Quentin and crew. When you list all of the "Great" items I had above, I don't think "great chemistry" was in this film, so that's why it only gets a "show", a couple of noses behind the other two.

Actually, Basterds is another movie that jumped a half-football after I watched it a second time, as it got a 3 1/2 in the original review.

Happens a lot. I fully expect Avatar to drop a notch on second viewing, same with Invictus. That's the problem with movie critics. Sometime's we're just in a shitty mood going in, and unless the film blows us away, it's going to pay hell for it (which might be relevant to my review yesterday of Alice in Wonderland...we shall see). Other times, a not-so good movie finds a little hook that suckers me in, and I rate it higher than I should. (WALL-E...for JB's sake. Watchmen is probably another). Plus if I've been gagging on shitty movies for a couple of months, I tend to overrate the first good film I see (which is why Invictus got 4 footballs).

Again, right with you on Basterds. Really liked elements of it & it was a very good film. Just not my fav.

Just watched Hurt Locker last night (yeah I know a little late). I found it pretty damn lackluster. Can't really put my finger on it. Just very blah. Didnt hate it, but Up in the Air was MUCH more interesting.

I'm pretty sure I even heard/read somebody say it was one of the best war films to recent date. False. I thought it was good. Very Jarhead-esque. Didn't care for that film at all either.

How did this win Best Picture in 2010 and not Saving Private Ryan (which is lightyears better) in '98? Speaking of, Shakespeare in Love winning Best Picture in '98 over SPR is one of this country's greatest tragedies. Right up there with the internment of Japanese-American citizens during WWII and "Federal" Reserve Bank.

4thQtrGlory wrote:If we got all that, i would hang a browns flag from my boner for 2 weeks straight...

Agree. Saw it a few weeks ago. It's not that Hurt Locker was bad by any stretch, but Best Picture? Don't see that. Although I don't know what would have appropriately won in it's stead. I don't see many films in the theater anymore so I'm woefully behind.

Beat the crap out of Angels and Demons or Public Enema's, though. Those are the most recent 2 movies I've found the time to see.

Got Hurt Locker on top my DVD player waiting to be watched ... but the feedback I've heard mirrors what I've read in here. As I see all these films, its seeming like 2009 was a weak year for movies. Some good ones to be sure, but no elite ones, and a weak class of Best Pic nominees ... kinda like the year Crash won IMO.

Best 09 film I've seen, by far, has been Up in the Air.

"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

swerb wrote:Got Hurt Locker on top my DVD player waiting to be watched ... but the feedback I've heard mirrors what I've read in here. As I see all these films, its seeming like 2009 was a weak year for movies. Some good ones to be sure, but no elite ones, and a weak class of Best Pic nominees ... kinda like the year Crash won IMO.

Best 09 film I've seen, by far, has been Up in the Air.

Liked Up in the Air, liked Hurt Locker a bit more. I'm a war movie junkie if the movie is well done and I thought it was.

Loved how dude could walk into a crowded street never knowing who had the magic cell phone and take apart a jury-rigged soup sandwich of a bomb yet couldn't choose (or didn't want to choose) a cereal back home in a grocery store. Just thought it was solid.

But like you said, weak year for BP nominees. Which is why I don't think you can compare winners from year to year. Not to mention it just doesn't matter to me in regard to awards. I enjoy (if that's the right word) Saving Private Ryan as much as any movie I've ever watched. Couldn't even tell ya what film won the award that year.

NEVER compare Best Picture winners...or worse, Best Picture nominees, from year to year.

You're right, 2009 wasn't great. Avatar will be the movie most remembered 25 years from now, while Up In the Air, Hurt Locker, and Inglourious Basterds will be viewed as very good movies. I'm not sure which will age better. Probably Hurt Locker, although if the economy keeps sucking for another 3 - 5 years, Up In the Air may be something like a "Grapes of Wrath" (OK...probably a bit of hype there). Could just be that Tarantino's latest becomes a classic in its own right, just like Pulp Fiction.

But it's probably just a pendulum swing. Look at 2007. Juno, Michael Clayton, Sweeney Todd, No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood. And that's not counting smaller movies that I thought kicked ass; Once, Eastern Promises and The Lives of Others.

2006? The Departed, hands down, but you also had Children of Men (sorry, Swerb), Babel, Letters from Iwo Jima, and The Queen.

2005 did see a less than great movie win. Crash was good, and was different, but it wasn't really Best Picture quality. On the other hand, it won because too many people didn't buy the hype about Brokeback Mountain. I would have been PISSED had that won, and it certainly has nothing to do with being homophobic...it was just a crappy movie made by a crappy director. I still personally think that Spielberg got robbed, and Munich should have won. I could have also dealt with Good Night and Good Luck or The History of Violence winning.

I thought 2004 was even worse, as I really just didn't get the 'greatness' of Million Dollar Baby. But frankly, there wasn't that much else that year. When "Sideways" is in my top 5 for the year, you know it's a weak year.

Then you have 2003. You got to feel sorry for GREAT movies like Mystic River and Lost in Translation, as they had no chance going up against The Return of the King.

But the biggest travesty does remain Shakespeare In Love beating Saving Private Ryan. Spielberg wouldn't campain, while Harvey Wienstein is the ultimate attention whore...which resulted in the biggest joke in Oscar history, AFAIC.

I'm right now just hoping 2010 isn't WORSE than 2009...because this year has sucked so far. Worst year I've seen since I started writing here.

Two very good adult movies out in 2010 so far: "Shutter Island" and "Ghost Writer." Both good stories, great production values. Two notable directors (Scorsese and Polanski).For Mel Gibson fans (are there any left?), "Edge of Darkness" wasn't bad.Can't wait to see "Inception" this weekend.

i just rented basterds tonight. I cannot recommend this film. even as a farce it is unbelievable. clearly i am in the minority but it was like they were pissing on me and telling me it was raining. only problem was; I knew they were pissing on me. the last 20 -30 minutes is where it fell apart. until then it was ok.